Mandela didn't need to to move -- he always was more in favor of a non-violent solution to apartheid, although he and the ANC did end-up having to resort to armed resistance in the face of worsening treatment by the government. After his release from prison he was clear that although he still held armed resistance as an option, his desire was a peaceful settlement and coexistence with the white minority ...

And, of course, Mandela's armed resistance didn't indiscriminately target civilians; rather went after government and military installations. And his ultimate goal wasn't the elimination of the state or the government, just their repressive policies ...

Mandela could always conceive of living peacefully with his foes if they dismantled Apartheid, so his attitude didn't need much shifting in that direction ... the big shift in this case came from the government side, with DeKlerk undoing much of Botha's policies and of course releasing Mandela and others and legalizing the ANC's existence ...

They key, again, is that both side ended-up desiring peace, so it was able to happen ... without that mutual desire, who knows how long the conflict would have continued?

Interesting response, carp, so I might come back on some of it later on but just to take a few points at a time...

Quote:

Quote:

You mean the genocide? Does your disapproval extend to wanting prosecutions?

Only if it includes all terrorist leaders as well.

So you're against the summary execution of terror suspects because you want to see them put on trial?

Quote:

Give back the land ? I think not or at-lease with some conditions that Israel needs for security...

But land annexations are contrary to international law. Maybe you didn't know that but on the assumption that it's true would you accept that Israel MUST vacate the occupied land without pre-conditions? People are going to get very confused if you support international law on one issue but refute on another.

Which is laudable... but unfortunately Israel does and on a much grander scale than any one else ever has.

Quote:

They key, again, is that both side ended-up desiring peace, so it was able to happen ... without that mutual desire, who knows how long the conflict would have continued?

Not for ever because there were worldwide sanctions. In the case of Israel however there are no such sanctions because you lot think the most important thing in the world are US elections - to hell with Arabs - correct?

So you're against the summary execution of terror suspects because you want to see them put on trial?

Yes if they are captured - normally suicide bombers are not - but you can get their leaders for supporting them.

Quote:

But land annexations are contrary to international law.

We were annexed do you even know what your about ??

Again like I said many times before the UN is a Paper Tiger and does nothing but create even more problems by all these "International Laws" and Mandates and does nothing to enforce it <--- UN should be disbanded immediately and save the planet from a world of hurt.

Quote:

assumption that it's true would you accept that Israel MUST vacate the occupied land without pre-conditions?

NO thats not what I said - I said Israel is not going to give back the land that it "WON" fair and square for defending itself in battle - Only if Palestine can give Israel a guarantee security which it cannot.

Your confused with land WON in battle from land that is just occupied , like a neighbor takes over your garden without a fight. You lose you lose , Palestine should have chosen their friends wisely and not the losers . If Palestine chosen instead to offer Israel peace and guaranteed security , they would have gotten their land back decades ago.

So is Hamas - it's Israel that's in favour of apartheid and violent solutions - correct?

Last time I checked, Hamas' main goal is the elimination of Israel as a state and the transformation of all Palestine into an Islamic Arab state of their own. Hamas officials have also in the past outright stated that for them peace with Israel is impossible and that jihad is the only solution. Given that and the indiscriminate nature of Hamas' methods I would have to disagree that it favors a peaceful coexistence with Israel or that it has thus far demonstrated a desire for non-violence in pursuit of its goals.

So, no, it is not correct that only Israel favors violent solutions ...

Quote:

but unfortunately Israel does and on a much grander scale than any one else ever has.

Which again does nothing to absolve Hamas' responsibility for doing the same thing ...

Quote:

In the case of Israel however there are no such sanctions because you lot think the most important thing in the world are US elections - to hell with Arabs - correct?

If by "you lot" you refer to government foreign policy so far, I would have to say it's been up and down in terms of fairness towards the Palestinians, with an especially low dip over the past eight years in particular ...

If you mean to include me personally in that "lot", I'd have to say to hell with hard-line factions of both Israel and Palestine and let everyone else live their lives in peace ... but unfortunately I don't get much say in the matter.

So you're against the summary execution of terror suspects because you want to see them put on trial?

Yes if they are captured - normally suicide bombers are not - but you can get their leaders for supporting them.

Who said anything about suicide bombers?

Quote:

Quote:

But land annexations are contrary to international law.

We were annexed...

So what? You mean because you were annexed everybody else has to be? You seem to have a rather inflated opinion of US importance - the prohibition of land annexations was decided by the entire world community after WWII.

Quote:

Again like I said many times before the UN is a Paper Tiger and does nothing but create even more problems by all these "International Laws" and Mandates and does nothing to enforce it <--- UN should be disbanded immediately and save the planet from a world of hurt.

on the assumption that it's true would you accept that Israel MUST vacate the occupied land without pre-conditions?

NO thats not what I said...

I know - its what you should have said. Alright then - you don't have to give up your garden to baseball playing trespassers but Arabs have to give up their gardens to lawless armed fanatics because the United States has racist policies.

Quote:

Your confused with land WON in battle from land that is just occupied

That's your confusion - I've posted the prohibitions often enough, you should try reading them sometime.

Last time I checked, Hamas' main goal is the elimination of Israel as a state and the transformation of all Palestine into an Islamic Arab state of their own.

Although that's a politically acceptable position having regard to the history of Israel I'm personally in favour of trying to bring Hamas around into accepting it which I believe would be possible if Israel vacates the occupied land and accepts the right of Palestinians to elect their own government. We persuaded Irish republicans to abandon the elimination of Northern Ireland as its goal except by peaceful means so we have to hope and that Hamas can be similarly persuaded to do likewise in unconditional talks similar to those that worked in NI.

Quote:

Last time I checked, Hamas' main goal is the elimination of Israel as a state and the transformation of all Palestine into an Islamic Arab state of their own. Hamas officials have also in the past outright stated that for them peace with Israel is impossible and that jihad is the only solution. Given that and the indiscriminate nature of Hamas' methods I would have to disagree that it favors a peaceful coexistence with Israel or that it has thus far demonstrated a desire for non-violence in pursuit of its goals.

Flawed reasoning I'm afraid... Hamas action is a response to the illegal annexation of its land and other abuses not the elimination of Israel. This is also where you're hypocrisy comes in - you want the right to bring action against trespassers in your garden whom you decide you can't coexist with and you expect that to be upheld by your courts and enforced but you don't want enforcement of the resolutions that require Israel to vacate Palestinian land.

So, yes, it's CORRECT to say that only Israel favours violent solutions. Hamas favours the enforcement of existing UN resolutions OVER violent solutions. In this context whilst Hamas has demonstrated it's desire for peaceful co-existence by honouring successive ceasefires Israel has demonstrated it's violent contempt for peace by breaking them. Whereas Israel is choosing violence as a first option to defend illegal settlements Hamas is choosing violence as a last resort.

Like the American Indians who fought bravely also lost their war but now they have a "State with in a State" to do what they want with it but must live peaceful and not lobb rockets or commit terrorist acts. Palestinians could learn something from them

You mean, genocide, ethnic cleansing (there was no fair war!) and consequent ghettoization should serve as pattern?I have news for you, it already is!However, unlike those Indians, who never had a chance and have effectively lost everything, the Palestinians have at least as long a history as the Jews and won't become Tourism exhibits, like their unfortunate US counterparts.They are growing in numbers ..... in a few decades, they'll outnumber Israelis.So, while it may seem silly of the Hamas, to lop those toy rockets, but in the longer view, which people in that region have, it Israel which is digging her own grave,

I'm personally in favour of trying to bring Hamas around into accepting it which I believe would be possible if Israel vacates the occupied land and accepts the right of Palestinians to elect their own government.

That would be the change I'm referring to. Also,of course, the hard-line Israelis would need to change their position on continued expansion of settlements, as you mention ...

Quote:

but you don't want enforcement of the resolutions that require Israel to vacate Palestinian land.

It would be hypocrisy if that's what I thought -- but since I have always supported the removal of Settlements in occupied land, and have stated such many times on these boards, your supposition is erroneous ...

I'm obviously going to disagree, but at this point it's simply going to be a circular argument, much like the one about who broke which cease-fire first: it depends largely on who's version of the "truth" one wishes to believe. Rather than buy completely into one side's story or the other's, I chose to believe that the truth really lies somewhere in between the two absolutes of the other guy being exclusively responsible. In my experience reality turns out more often than not to be just too complex and nuanced -- especially with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict -- for simple reduction to black-and-white to apply ...

It would be hypocrisy if that's what I thought -- but since I have always supported the removal of Settlements in occupied land, and have stated such many times on these boards, your supposition is erroneous

Well, what you said in this thread was:

until *both* sides determine that it is in their best interests to coexist with each other not much is going to happen to resolve the situation peaceably ...

That gives Israel the option of keeping the settlements does it not? All they have to do is decline peaceful co-existence (as they have been doing for 60 years). In the States by contrast the law of trespass requires people to get off your land straight away precisely BECAUSE you're unwilling to peacefully co-exist with them in your garden.

Quote:

In my experience reality turns out more often than not to be just too complex and nuanced -- especially with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict -- for simple reduction to black-and-white to apply

Unless of course you're in the States and want a trespasser removed from your land in which case everything is quite straightforward. Black and white, no nuanced complications there because the law has to be upheld whether the jerks like it or not.

Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.

All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.